This
appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned single judge of
the High Court of Punjab & Haryana made on October 7, 1993 in RSA No, 896/93.

The
admitted facts are that the respondent had joined military service after the
declaration of Indio-china War. emergency was declared on October 26, 1962. The respondent joined the Army on May 25, 1963. The Government of Punjab
exercising the power under proviso the Article 309 of the Constitution passed
the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 (for short,
the 'Rules'). The Rules provided for benefit of pay and seniority to
ex-servicemen re-employed in civil services. the respondent was discharged from
military service on September
24, 1973 and there
after, he was appointed in January, 1979 as L.D.C. in ex-servicemen quota. He
was granted the benefit of the increments and seniority in terms of Rules 2 and
4 of the Rules, Subsequently, realising the mistake that he was not entitled to
two increments after the Indo-China Emergency was lifted, the same was recalled
by order dated 21.4.1987.

After
issuing the notice, they withdraw the benefit on February 18, 1988. Calling in question, the said action of the appellants,
the respondent filed a civil suit on April 27, 1988. It may be relevant, at this juncture,
to note that during Indo-Bangla War, the Government had declared the Emergency
of December 3, 1971 which was lifted on March 22, 1973. Consequently, the respondent has
claimed the benefit of seniority and pay for the period of service rendered
during the period of second Emergency. The trial Court dismissed the suit but
on appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit
and granted the benefit of two increments. When second appeal was filed, the
High Court dismissed the same. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

The
contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that under the
Rules, the personnel who rendered the military service during Emergency of
Indo-China was alone is entitled to the benefit. Though the respondent
continued after the lifting of the first Emergency and during the period of
second Emergency, namely, Indo-Bangala War, the period of aid service would not
be counted under the Rules. we find force in the contention. This question, in
the first instance, was considered by this Court in (Ex.Capt.) Randhir Singh Dhull
vs. S.D. Bhambri & Or. [(1968) LAB. IC 894] wherein this Court extracted
the definition of the military service which reads as under:

"Definition:
For the purpose of these rules, expression military service, means enrolled or
commissioned service in any of the three wings of the Indian Armed Force
(including services as a warrant officer) rendered by a person during the
period of operation of the Proclamation of Emergency made by the President
under Article 352 of the Constitution on the 26th October, 1962, or such other
service as may hereafter ba declared as military service for the purpose of
these rules. Any period of military training followed by military service shall
also be reckoned as military service." "4. Increments, seniority and
pension, Period of military service shall count for increments, seniority and
pension as under:- (i) Increment- The period spent by a person on military
service, after attaining the minimum age prescribed for appointment to any
service or post to which he is appointed, shall count for increments. Where no
such minimum as is prescribed the minimum age shall be as laid down in rules
3.9, 3.10 and 3.11 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II. This concession
shall, however, be admissible only on first appointment." This Court had
held that the words emphasised clearly showed that it is only the service
rendered during the period of Emergency that would be taken into account and
not any other period. No doubt, there is also provision for other service being
declared as military service, but no order of the Government making such
declaration has been brought to out notice. Thus, it could be seen that this
Court has settled that the military service would be the service rendered
during the first Emergency unless there is any further declaration under the
Rules given by the State covering the second Emergency. The personnel who
joined the service during the period to first Emergency is not entitled to claim
the benefit of the period of service rendered during the second Emergency. The
learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the Circular Letter No.
325 (SII (3) - 72 of 5866 dated February 24, 1972 and contended that the Government of India in paragraph 2 thereof,
has issued the benefit of military service to those who continued under the
first Emergency. The State Government is paragraph 3, have also extended the
same benefit and, therefore, the respondent is entitled to the benefit thereof.
We find that there is not force in the contention.

Para 2
thereof relates to the Central Government Servants who have joined the military
service during second emergency and continued thereafter became entitled to the
benefit.

Admittedly,
the respondent is not a Central Government Servant and, therefore, para 2
thereof has no application.

Para 3 in Government Service before he
jointed the military service which reads as under:

"
The Punjab Government have decided that the civil Government employees who are/have
been called for military service during the present Emergency shall be eligible
to the concessions enjoined in the Punjab Government National Emergency
(concessions) Rules, 1965 read with the Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel
(Reservation of Vacancies in the punjab Non- technical service) Rules,
1968." A reading thereof clearly indicated that the candidate must be a
government servant having been called for the military service during the
second Emergency; such Government servant shall be eligible to the concessions
enjoined in the Punjab government National Emergency (Concessions) Rule, 1965
read with the Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of vacancies in
the Punjab Non-Technical Service) Rules, 1968. Under these circumstances, the
respondent is not entitled to two increment which were wrongly given and
rightly withdrawn.

The
appeal is accordingly allowed. The orders of the High court and the District
Judges stand set aside and the suit of the respondent stand dismissed. No
costs.